Dev Shawn McGrath Lays Down Some Smack: storytelling in games is worthless

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Except for dance. Dance can be interactive, or passive. Dance can be creative or prescriptive. Dance can have a narrative or not. It's what happens with every new artistic medium when it is still growing - people try and pin down what it is and say it's different to everything else. That never works

I outlined that games also have non-abstract rules and goals. These are vital parts of any game and they determine the interactivity. Dance has nothing in common with that or else it becomes a game.

Actually I think every player's reaction to the experience will be different.

Naturally, but you can apply subjectivity to anything in the world and have the same result: nothing is the same to two different people. This discussion is not about art.

No, Walking Dead plays to other strengths of the medium. The ability to put the player into the shoes of the person involved.

Any game with a focus on set narrative is, inadvertently or not, very closely connected with cinema. The ability to juggle chunks of linear narrative is not the strength of the medium. That goes for emotional attachment to a character as well, because good books and films (since they usually have a clearly defined narrative) do that unquestionably better. What you usually do in games like that is very much like turning over the pages or pressing stop and play on a remote control.

And I'm sure when films came out people were saying "Why just use them to tell normal stories when a book can do that?

You are seeking a clearer and more precise *terminology* to a concept that is far from clear and precise. Words are used because they are convenient. Suppose you win the word war, and somehow achieve the miracle of getting everyone to agree on an unified definition. Then I don't see renaming this subforum from the 'PC Gaming' subforum to the 'PC Gaming and Electronic Experiencing and Death-free Interactive Experiences and Pseudo-simulation and ....' subforum would suddenly enhance the conversation and encourage concise vocabulary.

Imagine that. Games consoles will cease to be 'games' consoles. Steam will cease to sell 'games'. Vast numbers of people will cease to be 'gamers'. If you really want to do that, instead of forcing everyone in the world to adopt your terminology and think up new words for the things they all are actually pretty happy calling games, why not go create your own word for whatever specific, precise, and rarified thing you are thinking of?

Why does it matter what it would be called? The important part is that the distinction is made.

Any game with a focus on set narrative is, inadvertently or not, very closely connected with cinema. The ability to juggle chunks of linear narrative is not the strength of the medium. That goes for emotional attachment to a character as well, because good books and films (since they usually have a clearly defined narrative) do that unquestionably better. What you usually do in games like that is very much like turning over the pages or pressing stop and play on a remote control.

'Unquestionably?' Many of us would *heavily* question that.

Why does it matter what it would be called? The important part is that the distinction is made.

'Game' is a clear concept, I'm just arguing against obfuscating it.

It's not a clear concept at all. The fact that people have been arguing about it for decades is proof of that.

And no, the 'distinction' is unimportant. The recognition of the existence of distance, for example, can exist without a precise agreed upon definition of at what point a distance is short, or long. Similarly the recognition that a game can be more, or less gamic/otherwise mechanically driven, can be done, and done less contentiously with more honesty regarding the subtleties of the issue, without a precise, firm, dividing line between what is, and what isn't a game.

So I guess this Dev has only likes pong? FUK OFF M8 is all I can say. Grrgh.

The ways in which I play games are generally to create or be told stories. Wether it be in that moment to moment survival of a multiplayer match with friends which we reminiss on years later or to listen to or read or watch interesting... stuff.

Games are essentially experience generators, experiences become memories, recited memories become stories and histories.

Urgh I can't even comment further on this idiot dev without annnoying myself. Makes perfect sense he is a friend of the Fez developer.

Lots of stuff people call "video games" today are really just adventures. That's a nice word to use - adventure. Computer "RPG" games are simply adventures 99% of the time. Just because point&click puzzles were once called that doesn't mean we have to cling to the ghosts of the past.

My definition of a game: it's a test, conducted either for fun (usually), or to determine something. Many games are tests of skill, others are tests of wits, there are also tests of imagination and empathy or knowledge (Dixit). The "something" being determined can be "who takes out the trash today", the method is by playing Rock Paper Shotgun, and it's a game of... luck, and bluffing. Don't discount games to determine luck. Games of dice and others are descendants of magic rituals, and ancient people deeply cared about magic, luck, and favor of the gods. Olympic games are tests of training and natural talent.

I stay away from claims like "games are an art form, which..." because saying something is art is like saying something is foozle. Art is one of most vague and poorly determined terms. Art doesn't even have a purpose. Not even aesthetics.

Do you want to know what is a terrible way to market a game ? The trailer of GTA V.

Is it pretty ? Yes. Is it polished ? Certainly. But as a presentation of a game, it's a fucking DISASTER. There's not a single moment in the video which gives you a hint that it's an interactive program, let alone showing how you can interact with it. It looks like an animated movie much like Toy Story. It looks exactly like a movie trailer. Trailers are for movies, not for games. When I say "exactly", it's not a hyperbole. I mean that literally. This could be a movie advertisment playing in a cinema before the movie proper, and no one would distinguish it unless they heard the name "Grand Theft Auto" or "GTA".

Originally Posted by Doesn'tmeananything

Not at all. Football's rules prevent players from using their hands, the most complex motor-functional part of human body, which sets a very interesting handicap for them to overcome. And that presupposes an infinite number of mechanics due to the nature of our anatomy.

I'll remember this example for the next argument "mouse + keyboard is the best control method for everything". A very elegant example. This doesn't mean I like console controllers, not at all.

It's not a clear concept at all. The fact that people have been arguing about it for decades is proof of that.

Similarly the recognition that a game can be more, or less gamic/otherwise mechanically driven, can be done, and done less contentiously with more honesty regarding the subtleties of the issue, without a precise, firm, dividing line between what is, and what isn't a game.

Who's been arguing about it for decades, exactly?

And as much as I don't like anything that comes under this, I don't get why does 'not a game' have to be an exact term with a derogatory definition.

Perhaps the other side believes that 'art' can be precisely and uncontroversially defined.

I like this guy.

The conversation's devolved into our regular stupid nonsensical bullshit where certain grognards tell everybody to get off their metaphysical lawn, but for fuck's sake, when you're saying "vidja games aren't even technically games," why the fuck are you even on this forum?

This is like listening to Right-Wingers blather on about "real America," defined as suburban White home-owning Protestant gun-toting family men who secretly think they're John Wayne, and anybody who doesn't fit that measure is clearly an imposter.

Last edited by Nalano; 29-11-2012 at 09:11 PM.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Okay, let me stop you here. Why is battle "game" but puzzles aren't? Aren't battles fundamentally just puzzles where you apply different set of logical skills (sometimes combined with reflexes) to achieve a goal?

Okay, let me stop you here. Why is battle "game" but puzzles aren't? Aren't battles fundamentally just puzzles where you apply different set of logical skills (sometimes combined with reflexes) to achieve a goal?

A puzzle is characterized by a single solution, or very few solutions. The more solutions there are, the farther from puzzle and closer to a game. Battles in P:T can be fought in many ways - but not as many as in Baldur's Gate, for example. Hence I only gave it 1 point out of 5.

Also, battles have clear win and loss conditions. Puzzles - not so much, often just winning.

A puzzle is characterized by a single solution, or very few solutions. The more solutions there are, the farther from puzzle and closer to a game. Battles in P:T can be fought in many ways - but not as many as in Baldur's Gate, for example. Hence I only gave it 1 point out of 5.

Also, battles have clear win and loss conditions. Puzzles - not so much, often just winning.

Where would something like SpaceChem rank? Would it be more of a game or a puzzle, seeing that the first task has somewhere around 650 different solutions (sorted by symbols in descending order)?

He's entirely right, but I've long since learned this is a pointless argument to have in these parts. People want their authorial narratives, even if that is fundamentally opposed to what games are and even if it inherently limits what they're capable of. There's no sense bitching about it, it's better to just go find games from devs that understand these things and support them.

Why not ARTS/MOBA/Line-Pushing-Game-naming-debate while we're at it? It would be a refreshing change from the usual "wot is RPG" we have.

I don't think "wot is game" is a refreshing change from "wot is RPG." Really just more of the same; especially when the line is drawn on exactly the same boundary as the "wot is RPG" clusterfuck was fought.

Other terms we can fight over because we're sadomasochists who specialize in self-flagellation:

FUN
ENTERTAINMENT
JOY
INTERACTIVE
DISCUSSION

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen